It is strange that at a time of such high crime and corruption we have no substantive DPP, Police Commissioner, Solicitor General, Chief Parliamentary Counsel and Integrity Commission. These offices all have an important role in ensuring that the rule of law prevails. Is this by design or sheer coincidence?
At present, no permanent appointments have been made to these key offices in the state and this must be a cause for concern. In some cases, we know that the Prime Minister exercised his veto but in the others, we have no explanation as to why these offices have not been filled.
Temporary acting appointments have the potential to compromise the independence of these offices. The appointee is in a delicate and vulnerable position. No bank will give a loan on the basis of a temporary appointment, the holder cannot properly personal life beyond the expiry date of his/her acting appointment, persons in contention for the position might try and undermine your chances, you worry about being set up by being appointed to act (because you are the natural, but unwanted successor) so that an adverse staff report will be done on your acting duty to destroy your chances when interviews are conducted for the ‘real’ promotion, and every sensitive matter that comes before you with political implications is a ‘test’ to see how receptive you may be to political influence.
Acting appointments have traditionally been used as a tool to manipulate the public service. People have been known to be left languishing, acting for many years, only to see their juniors leapfrog ahead of them when the Commission mysteriously and suddenly decides to fill the post. In the case of prison officer Dougnath Rajkumar, the Privy Council was astonished to note that he had been acting for 14 years! In another case I did, the officer remarked that the Commission appointed him to act for two years but refused to fill the vacancy as the Head of Department refused to make such a recommendation until his girlfriend’s brother completed a course and then recommended that interviews be held. Guess who scored higher at the interview?
Interviews & the Police
Interviews are a powerful weapon for manipulation. Examinations are objective. You are marked by reference to set criteria. The marker should not know the name of the candidate whose paper he is marking so there is little room for discrimination. Interviews, on the other hand, are personal. They see you. It is subjective. If they want to discriminate, they can. There is no right or wrong answer. You are at their mercy.
In the police service, for example, promotion is now done based on examination and interviews but many officers have complained that the interviews are being used as a ploy to increase the overall marks of ‘duncey-head’ officers who are favoured for promotion because of reasons extrinsic to merit and ability. There is the perception that interviews are being held to correct any imbalances that result from the objectively assessed theoretical promotion examinations.
I had refused to believe this until recently, when I realized that the Police Commissioner had quietly reversed a policy decision he had made to award marks to officers based on an officer’s grade in CXC or GCE or his marks at the promotion examination for English Language. Officers would receive up to a maximum of 35 points. The pie chart of potential appointees must have caused great alarm because the policy was suddenly changed.
Instead of awarding a score based on one’s grade or examination marks, Mr Philbert has revered his policy and decided that ALL officers would receive the maximum of 35 points REGARDLESS of their grade or score. So an officer with a distinction or someone who scored 90% would receive the same amount of points as the one that barely scraped through and obtained a grade C or 40 marks! So much for the promised change, Mr Philbert!
The incongruity in officers scoring high in the examination but being marked down in the interview reinforces this perception. The fact that the authorities refuse to have an ethnically balanced interview panel only adds fuel to the fire. Indo-Trini police officers feel that the odds are stacked against them. Why nothing is done about such an obvious legitimate grouse is a mystery that only the Police Commissioner, the Police Service Commission and the Minister of National Security can answer.
This new policy will not yield the best officers. There are far too many qualified people looking for jobs in the police service for Mr Philbert to promote this kind of mediocrity. Transformation and change will not come if we flip-flop on important policy changes. And its time Mr Philbert listen to the cry of the Indo-police officers that serve under his command. They feel as if they are being given a raw deal because the promised change to the ethnic composition of the interview panels in keeping with the Selwyn Ryan report from the Centre for Ethnic Studies has not come. Ethnic diversity in the hierarchy of the police service might never be achieved unless this is changed.
By Anand Ramlogan 2009-03-05